http://www.sciencealert.com/this-wo man-has-illegally-upload

>>7854718
>Does this revolutionize science?

Not it just increases the millions of STEM wannabes fighting each other just for 1 job opening

>>7854718
STEM wannabe: the website

>>7854718
Researchers always have access to the articles they need, if your institution doesn't subscribe to the journal your library's collaborators can get it for you legally, this is no time or effort on your part, there is literally dedicated staff who's job it is to get it for you, a quick email and you have it a few minutes later.

The people who use the term "paywall" are generally not researchers, but people who want to read an article for personal interest.

>>7854768
And why should they not be able to?

She has a point when she says:
>"All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold,"
>"everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits"

>>7854784
>>"everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits"
Thanks, I will use this to get into concerts for free from now on.

>>7854784
>And why should they not be able to?
Because it costs money to maintain the database infrastructure, the editors and the prestige of the journal through peer reviewers etc.

When you give that away to people who get it for free they are not a part of the system that contributes to sustaining the academic community; they are parasites who do not put back into the system like researchers do. They should at the very least pay the nominal fee to access whatever papers they want.

>Elsevier doesn't pay
Of course not. Direct payment isn't the product Elsevier is selling to researchers, quality and exclusivity is. People keep sending their papers to Elsevier instead of arXiv for a very good reason.

Also kind of ironic what she's saying about music when scum like her believe pirating music isn't stealing either.

>>7854804
peer review is not a paid service, the reviewers are volunteers

>database infrastructure
they could maintain that just with the money they get from submitted papers

>>7854831
No, virtually all the money required to maintain journals comes from universities which in the end is neglible to their budgets.

It's not a perfect system and needs to be revamped, but making everything free is the worst idea ever.

>>7854804
>Because it costs money to maintain the database infrastructure
almost nothing...

>the editors
do they really need this? I thought they just published everything...

>the prestige of the journal
lolwat

>peer reviewers
see >>7854831

>>7854834
>It's not a perfect system and needs to be revamped, but making everything free is the worst idea ever.
so, what's wrong with arxiv.org then?

>>7854804
>When you give that away to people who get it for free they are not a part of the system that contributes to sustaining the academic community; they are parasites who do not put back into the system like researchers do. They should at the very least pay the nominal fee to access whatever papers they want.

Most universities, where this research is taking place, are funded by the state in some way. Most research is funded directly through grants (some private, some state). I, as a taxpayer, am already paying a nominal fee to fund the sciences in my country.

Why should I not have access to the results of scientific research?

>>7854941
>so, what's wrong with arxiv.org then?
Publishing in it means fuckall to your career.

Ask literally any academic if they'd rather get published in Nature or upload something to arXiv.

arXiv's is pretty much recognised as "the place your publication ends up when you can't publish it in a real journal".

>>7854804
Let me host it for myself and my friends then.

Wasn't Aaron Swartz going to go to prison for 30 years for doing this?

>>7854970
You are very wrong. It's a preprint server. It's where you put things to make them available immediately, usually while they are undergoing peer review. In fact, some journals are starting to require an arXiv number for submission.

It's pretty clear you've never done real research.

>>7854970
Are you even a scientist??

>>7855013
I know it's a preprint server nigger it's "where it ends up" when you get rejected from being published in real journals, which is why you some times see arXiv references to papers.

>>7854768
>The people who use the term "paywall" are generally not researchers, but people who want to read an article for personal interest.
As an amateur engineer the paywall is the bane of my life. I get blocked out of the academic community just because I am not part of an institute? How is this fair? For instance I wanted to access papers on fluid coupling design and I couldn't so had to make do with my own basic first-principles model and guess what? /sci/ gave me shit for "trying to disprove the existing theory" when I posted it on here for verification. Well fuck you how am I supposed to use the real theory when I am blocked from seeing it?

(the fluid coupling worked by the way)

>>7855303
suggestion: if you use sci-hub, there is a subreddit, there you can find new links to it when the old ones are taken down.

>>7855352
thanks. What's next on the research list, boundary layer flow, like hell am I going to model that with A-level physics. My library had a book that solved the Navier-Stokes equation for boundary layer flow but that was only for a flat plate. I need to know for a curved plate.

>>7855303
>because I am not part of an institute?
>How is this fair?
You said it yourself, you're not contributing to the reputation (and thus ability to get grants) of an institute so why we share our resources (that we pay to maintain) with you?

Asshole. Stop leeching and stealing.

>>7855414
What institute was Einstein a part of in 1905?

Universities do not, and should not, have a monopoly on scientific advancement.

>>7854755
>Not it just increases the millions of STEM wannabes fighting each other just for 1 job opening
And which job is this? In case you didn't realise it: reviewing articles is done for free. it supposedly bestows prestige on the editors.

Too bad you cannot eat this prestige. From my time as a researcher I had no disposable income after paying student loans.

>>7855432
Registering at a university library is really not that expensive and you get access to quality information scientists who will help you with anything you need. Stop whining and just sign up. Paywalls aren't going to disappear any time soon.

>>7854768
>> Researchers always have access to the articles they need
Nope. My institution doesn't subscribe to every fucking journal out there. Even top tier institutions don't subscribe to every fucking journal

>> your library collaborators can get it legally
Which takes a long fucking time and you get it in shitty copy tier quality. They will sometimes refuse requests too. Apparently you can't get a whole book. Fuck those springer 'publish your article as a chapter in a book' things.

>>7854718
Is that her?

>>7855443
> From my time as a researcher

Grad-students aren't really researchers, your PI is a researcher, you're a lab monkey.

>>7855464
>Which takes a long fucking time and you get it in shitty copy tier quality.
Fair enough. I never said the system didn't have flaws. But trying to make it all "free as in free beer" isn't the asnwer.

>>7855473
>But trying to make it all "free as in free beer" isn't the asnwer.
Yes it is. My university puts all papers (pre-review versions) in an open-access archive that's free as in beer. So there's no point to have Elsevier making money by providing the same thing. Right now, the only benefit of having a tie to the publisher is the brand recognition of the journal.

Also, my papers are available via scihub, and I don't disapprove.

>>7854967

You need to PAY MORE